Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9229
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9168
 2-MP-MA-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and
 Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1931..

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On December 16, 1979, pursuant to a list previously furnished by the Local Chairman, the Carrier published a bulletin listing Claimants and members of certain other crafts to work the first shift on the New Years holiday (January I, 1980). The bulletin also constituted notice to other employes that they would be required to work on the second and third shifts on January 1, 1980. On December 28, 1979, the Master Mechanic posted a bulletin cancelling the first shift of the New Years Day work schedule. Claimants, therefore, did not work on the holiday. Each Claimant seeks double time pay for January 1, 1980 contending the December 29, 19719 bulletin was not timely issued.

 On the property, the Organization relied exclusively on the Note to Rule 5 of the applicable agreement to support its argument that the Carrier is required to give five days notice (prior to a holiday) that it is rescinding a prior bulletin which has designated certain employes to work on a holiday. According to the Organization, since the December 29, 1979 bulletin was issued only four days before New Years Day, the December 16, 1979 bulletin was not timely cancelled and
 Form 1 Award No. 9229
 Page 2 Docket No. 9168
 2-MY-MA-'82
 therefore, the Claimants were entitled to be paid as if they had worked on
 January 1, 1980.

 The Carrier contends that it did not arbitrarily cancel the first shift for New Years Day but it subsequently determined that connecting railroads were substantially curtailing operations which eliminated the need for Claimants to work on the holiday. The Carrier interprets the Note to Rule 5 as imposing a duty to give advance notice to those employes who must work on a holiday. However, the Carrier asserts there is no language in the Note which could be construed to mandate five days advance notice to those workers, like Claimants, who would not be working a holiday.

 The issue presented by this Claim is how the Rule 5 Note should be interpreted and applied to the particular facts of this case. The Note to Rule 5 states:

The Note to Rule 5 is intended to provide employes with at least five days advance notice that they must work on a holiday so the employes can accommodate their personal lives with the necessity'of working on a holiday. While the Carrier need not provide any type of notice to those who will not be working on a holiday, the Carrier's obligation under the Rule 5 Note as to those workers scheduled for holiday work continues after the appropriate notice has been given. Second Division Award No. 7704 (Marx). Those employes originally scheduled to work on a holiday but who do not work because the Carrier cancels the original schedule may have a legitimate cause to complain. Second Division Award No. 7443 (Wallace).

 To further the underlying intent and purpose of the Rule 5 Note, employes scheduled to work on a holiday are entitled to some notice that their holiday schedule has been amended. In this case, the Carrier obviously realized that some notice was necessary since it did post a bulletin cancelling the first shift four days before January 1, 1980. However, the five day time limitation for giving notice applies to scheduling holiday work and not to the cancellation of shifts previously scheduled. The question, thus, is whether the Carrier's December 29, 1979 notice was made within a reasonable time before the holiday. What is reasonable must be viewed on a case by case basis by looking at all the surrounding circumstances. Factors and circumstances to consider include: the amount of actual notice given (prior to commencement of the holiday shift); the hardship on individual employes arising from the cancellation; and presence of legitimate, good faith reasons for the cancellation.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 9229
 Docket No. 9168
 2-Mr-MA-'82

 After carefully reviewing the record in this case, we conclude the Carrier provided the Claimants with reasonable advance notice that their shifts would be cancelled. The notice was posted four days before the New Years holiday which gave the Claimants enough time to adjust to the cancellation without undue hardship. The record does not disclose any abuse of Rule 5 on the Carrier's part since the cancellation of the first shift resulted from a good faith determination that the reduction in overall railroad operations vitiated the need for Claimants to work.

 Our decision denying this claim is confined to the peculiar facts of this case on this property.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BUAK.D

By Order of Second Division


By l_~-~'"'~~, ;~' ..[/,L,./~'L-.·semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated atfChicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.